Vocabulary

[Dirty Shoez]

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p="a...eb=Search&ei=UTF-8&fr=FP-tab-web-t&fl=0&x=wrt

Can't believe I forgot about "...a ___, a ___, a flim-flammer and a charlatan." One of my all-time faves.



"And that, my friend, is REAL." -- Another good one.

"This is the truth." / "This is true." / "You are speaking the truth." / etc. -- Good stuff.

"Pusillanimous" -- Huge word that damn near nobody knows that means cowardly. You could also say pusillanimity. I'd put money on it that this word will stump more Professor/Intellectual people than just about any other (non-foreign loan) word you can think of.

"You ain't never lied." -- Jack move.

"The reality of the situation, is that..." -- See above.

"The People" -- Esp. with a capital P.


I will respond to some of this crap in short order.

 

[Dirty Shoez]

You started with the fact that almost no one here likes Bush or conservatives, and no one is proud of being white or will stand up and oppose others when white people are under attack.

I do not give ground in what I believe is a relevant fight. Whether or not I agree with one perspective of history, social responsibility, or racial superiority is immaterial on this board because that is the intellectual fodder that astounds the weak and busies the impotent. Rarely have I known someone who spoke very passionately about racial pride and power who was not a broke college student, unimportant person, or generally failed soul who has turned to the least common denominator in a bid for power.

Woe be unto you, he without a cause nor compulsion to begin and sustain a cultural offensive.

There is a difference between Us vs Them racial hate, and "We need to improve our race"-type pride. White people, more than any other race, seem to fear both. White people, more than any other people, seem to not see a reason for either. Hopefully that makes sense.

To say, we're all human, can't we all just get along, race doesn't matter, and yadda yadda, is to ignore hundreds of years of history and shared culture and all the other crap that makes us who we are.

This is similar to the Anti-USA/Pro-War comment I made: Because I am half black, I do not necessarily feel compelled to join and participate in Black causes and movements. But because it is a topic that interests me, I see no harm in doing so as long as I do it for positive means.

A simplistic concept of 'race' that denies perspective, ethnic identity, or contribution is useless to one who would promote the interests of said 'race'. The fact that Condi Rice or Janice Rogers are both *probably* racially Black does not mean that a Black man must have pride in their accomplishments, especially when many in the Black community have a notion of communalism that judges based on what one's perceived benefits to others is.

Good for them, and their Mental-slave philosophy. But that is not the pinnacle and it is certainly not a goal.

Colin Powell, for one, is not just some random Nigger that the White Power Movement put in power. He was a decorated General and someone who worked his way up to earn the position he reached, regardless of his color or creed. Yet at the same time, it makes no sense to pretend he is not a Black man, and that his accomplishment did not in fact represent what Black Men are now capable of in this formerly uber-racist society.

'Liberal' and 'Conservative' are relativistic terms designated by the brain-dead American mass media. European Conservatives would be considered quite Liberal in America, while most self-described 'Liberal' parties aspire much more closely to American conservative ideals. The fact that people who have a broader perspective than Fox News, Tom Brokaw, and Newsweek reject these labels is no prescient marker of the intellectual stupefication that pervades them. Your simplistic and often incorrect ascription of the views and ideas of people on these boards as 'liberal' is merely due to your narrow and neophyte definitions of political expression.

Awesome diction. Poor philosophy.

You say Relativistic as if the word Relative is not in fact embedded into it. This is where you sew the seeds of your own failure.

"She's a whore"
"Well...Not really. But She is Whorish."
"Uh, OK....So, basically, you're saying she's a whore?"

This is the way it goes on a semantic level, and I will now cover the other level.



I am working with the framework that I have been provided, and that has been in existence before and after TV or the Internet was created. The fact that there exists millions of unaffiliated Liberals, who readily identify themselves as Liberals, who read all of the independent news sources, etc., does not negate the fact that a 10% or so minority refuses this label because it is in their nature to do so.

You are confusing the faggy, 'non-partisan', 'unbiased', 'open-minded' idealism normally associated with Lefttards, with an overwhelming urge by brainwashed peoples to ascribe labels to people, especially opponents. In fact, it is a rather convenient set of circumstances that, I am sorry to inform you, is more composed of the former than of the latter.


Honestly....do not sit here and deny that faggy goth kids, 1) hate to be labeled, and 2) are about 100x more likely to be Liberals. -- Part of the definition of BEING a Liberal is to reject labels and see everybody as being 100% equal in every way (after birth, that is). If you disagree with that analysis then, I implore you, provide the alternative rather than ranting about systematic disenfranchisement via pre-packaged sociopolitical appellations.

In the 'American' spectrum, most posters on these boards are very left-wing, and far from an American conservative when it comes to viewpoint. But does that make them 'liberals'? In your simplistic world, yes. The rest of us, though, are less concerned with O'Reilly style summary liberal labeling and more with our own views and opinions.

See above, sir. It is almost a requirement of your kind to become severely annoyed and vexed to the point of personal attacks and ad hominem, when confronted with labels like "Democrat" or "Liberal". You loathe and despise these terms because you feel they take away from your objectivity, that is, you feel you cannot be considered believable unless you are stripped of every title, name, race, creed, organization or anything else you may have. (The one exception you will make, though, is School. Liberals cannot resist throwing their education into the faces of others.)

If you have seen O'Reilly (or Hannity, or ANY Prominent Conservative) say anything even CLOSE to what I have just stated, then I would love to see a transcript of such. As far as I know, this is my own home-cooked brew, which as-yet remains unchallenged. It is such a hard and concrete truth that people prefer to skip over it and get back to their sectarian cheerleading, or for some, non-sectarian sectarian cheerleading--those who don't realize that refusing to be a part of a group, is just as much of a group as any other group. Universal Truth #459.

The problem with you attempting to start a rational, interesting discussion on these boards is your very frequent off-the-wall, undeveloped, pseudointellectual rambling on threads started by others. A good example would be the Xiane thread. Instead of saying "My bad" or "Im just fuckin around" you insist on defending useless and noncontributing invective. In other cases, your sometimes ludicrous verbiage, while a quite endearing attempt at learned discussion, causes everything from anger to laughter to hositlity. Often I have read your remarks and knew what you were trying to say, but understood that many others who were arguing with you didn't, and for good reason.

The fact that a "Check out my Rap Show" thread posted in a Sociopolitical forum is your example, more than suffices in summing up your whole argument: basically..you have none.

I fucked up his thread because it was fun. It was enjoyable. Perhaps 1 or 2 people TOPS....TOPS who eventually went to his show even SAW the thread. Perhaps 1 out of those 1 or 2 used all or part of the thread to finalize their decision on whether or not to go to the show. And we can continue reducing and deducing and inducing and conducing thus. The fact of the matter is, the thread did not belong here. So i did what I felt like doing.

Now please, sir, come up with a better example, or forfeit your argument. You must know that all before you who have tried the "You don't argue the topics, you just talk shit" angle have failed, and miserably. Trouble-maker, yes. Problem-causer, yes. But Non-Contributor (and I mean, one who moves the discussion forward) is is one label that will never stick.

It would be like if I started a thread about Lawn Darts, and you entered in it and said "Well you don't know shit about temperate foliage". Often your additions are either off-mark, vaguely relevant, or simply nonsensical.

Friend, look no further than the thread about Hyperspace. You have not seen a comment from me in it, and you most likely will not. I skip about 40% or more of threads on forums, just because. I am too much of a powerhouse to be contended with. It would be unfair for me to be the 600lb gorilla in every discussion.

 

[Dirty Shoez]

The practical applicability of the ideas on this forum and said importance are subjective; the fact that the opinions of many here seem to be uniform may be upsetting and offputting to you, but really doesn't mean shit to the rest of us. Where you look and see a chorus of opinions I see disagreements and discussion occuring at least semi-often. The reason it is so much more upsetting to you is because you are so diametrically opposed to the views of most or all of us, and you have no one to back you. Thus, in your opinion you are a Catholic in a room full of Mormons, Mormons who don't even want to hear the first word you say.

Something along those lines. Only, I am a Poor Conservative College-Educated Minority in a room full of predominately Middle Class College-Educated Whites. To act like that does not add into it, would be a gross mischaracterization.

These Middle Class Whites here feel as though I am obligated to be Liberal. Being that I am not, and am vehemently opposed to becoming a Liberal, and on top of all of that Have came from nothing, and on top of ALL OF THAT am in school, and ON TOP OF ALL OF THAT am excelling at school and have plans for business endeavours, a rap career and so on......enfuriates them to no end. NO END. Their numbers are in the dozens and verily they will not relent. 5 of them would kamikaze themselves to take me out, and I am just speaking the real here. I am a danger to the Liberal movement. I am a problem. I am one of those people who are capable of causing the Liberal movement great harm.

These things having been said, it is no suprise that people don't even touch on pragmatics, and instantly jump into the criticism and personal attacks. They fear me, and they ought to. But their cowardice and dishonesty is no measure of the applicability of what I am proposing or the rationale of what i am professing.

In fact, tadou, you have often been denied the opportunity to speak that first word or get heard out because you so frequently waste it. Had you not often touted yourself as the great answer to all that is incorrect and faulty about this board while attacking the views of everyone else, perhaps you would be listened to more attentively.

Hmm. Don't care. This is a message board, I get the first word any time I click the button before ayone else.

If this were real life, you'd understand that I would most-likely dominate the conversation, that you would not irritate me or cause me to raise my voice, and several other realities. You do not type nearly 100wpm on the internet, and not have at the LEAST an average ability to discuss things in `real-life'.

You do see people like EDJ, for example, with completely constant, unchanging views and an insistence on their own correctness not being persecuted on this board the way you are, and it may very well be due to the fact many on this board agree with them. That is, however, the unfortunate nature of things, and you can either deal or leave. Had you not came out sounding like the omniscient tadou on all things besides bonsai farming, that could have been the case for you as well.

I have been clear on the things that I am a master at. Among them are Internet arguing and Lyricism, and in most instances, Foreign language proficiency. Besides those, just about everything else is open.

EDJ is of no concern to me on the internet. Literally...no concern. He is useless to me as an internet figure. I cannot get down with his all-caps talking, and none of the things he types inspire or motivate me. In person, however, I have no doubt in my mind that he would be more impressive than 99% of this board, and I say that with a straight face and not one semblance of sarcasm.

Many people hold views that they do not enforce or radically impose on the world. The only one infuriated here is you, and even then you have no right to judge the efficacy or importance of one person in the world. Your radical solution lies in agreeing with everything the American right says and does. I wouldn't call that very radical at all. I don't think Sean Hannity will ever be compared to MLK, Malcolm X, or Ghandi, and for good reason.

So you go from chastizing my grouping of people on this board, to proclaiming that I agree with "everything the American right says or does." That is very thorough of you. Thanks for not being a hypocrite, sir.

I impose my views on the world because, more often than not, they are more righter. Just the way the game goes. One is reminded of the quote "Nobody's perfect; but on a Curve, I am." (I am not sure what genius came up with this one, but he must surely be brilliant.)

The fact of the matter is, if what I say isn't right, I can make it right. And why? Because most people here are either of failures or of the uninitiated. There is only one man on this internet that I have been afraid to challenge for fear of my first real resounding defeat, and that man is named Ghet and he does not post here. Luckily for me, the man is a Conservative.

WTF am i supposed to even be talking about here? Eh.....like it matters.

Whether or not that is correct is immaterial. Many of us have told our life stories, but we shouldn't even have to. You are constantly slipping and flailing in arguments on these boards because your intent is unascertainable, your argumentative tactics are self-defeating and bombastic, and your phrasing and verbiage are often either muddled or asinine, leaving people with the standard 'tadou defense' they know - ridicule, attack, discount, etc.

Or could it be that I am just that damn good, and the same people who call me simple and stupid can't help but prove themselves liars when they then turn around and complain about my large active vocabulary and H-variety vernacular?

I am the master of pressing buttons. This much is not open to argument. Not A master; The Master. I have become the measure. Yet, this reality alone is not directly correlated with the strength or lack thereof of my message. That false reality is one created by people like you, who have in a sense felt the need to self-nominate themselves to attack me on behalf of all the other lemmings and nobodies who wish for a reprieve.

The fact of the matter is that, as much as i enjoy confronting typical liberals, you in turn fear and are deathly afraid of the thinking-man's conservative. Your hatred and feeling threatened paralells my enjoyment and curiosity, and that is a very sad thing. I mean, seriously...it's fucking depressing.

And yet....this is what you come with. A ratcheted-up, intellectual attack on the Top Conservative and his Top Criticism. I salute you for trying, but you get bad marks for being sloppy and inconsistent, especially with the "American right" comment.

The intricacies of our own speech or the lack of variation between us is (as usual....) not your concern. I'd rather sound similar to others on this board than engage in awkward, rambling diatribes of rather peculiar intent and unascertainable meanings, but that's just me. And I won't make a thread about it and how it proves my literary methods are superior to the stylistic automatons on the rest of this pitiful, uneducated board. But again, that's just me.

It is very much just you. In fact, it is very much everybody on this particular section of Siccness, which is why this board is such a shithole and a boring place to be.

"Castro rulz."
"I agree. Amerika SUXXX."
"..."

This was more or less the typical Post-Tadou, Pre-Dirty Shoez conversation.


You all.....fear greatness. You fear being superior. There is not much I can add to it. There is no other explanation. Either you fear greatness, or you fear being great and falling from grace. Either way, there is no part of me capable of understanding why people would not want to progress and move forward, but rather would prefer to complain and bitch and at the same time, act like corporate sluts chasing bigger paychecks, drinking Bud light while watching the Super Bowl, etc etc. And you all realize this which is why you lash out at others. For every one hypocritical thing you do, you chastize X amount of conservatives as a form of redemption.


In a country where people continue to scream about Racism and Poverty and the failure of the Public School system, I am a Poor Minority who has managed to overcome the odds. If i played buddy-buddy and acted like a Liberal shithead on this forum, my credentials would never come under question and, in fact, I'd have OTHER PEOPEL spouting them off if someone ever came at me sideways. But because I am a Conservative, then this somehow creates the perception that I believe that I am somehow above other people. For fucks sake, how many more qualifiers can you add?


My goal is to raise more Black people out of poverty, convince more Blacks to become teachers, introduce and spread the Swahili language among the Black population, and not much else. This is why I act like a pompous prick most of the time: Because the bullshit you guys talk about, like the war, taxes, abortion, etc.--I don'really t give a fuck about.

 

[EDJ]

EDJ is of no concern to me on the internet. Literally...no concern. He is useless to me as an internet figure. I cannot get down with his all-caps talking, and none of the things he types inspire or motivate me. In person, however, I have no doubt in my mind that he would be more impressive than 99% of this board, and I say that with a straight face and not one semblance of sarcasm.

I'LL TAKE THAT AS A COMPLIMENT.

 

[Merciedez]

DEFINE WORDS....

babycrynopayattentionscreammyassoff: whyner stage

momdaddyforgotmeatthestore: can't stand ja

friendmakefunofmeigetangrythrowthings: can't take a joke

 

[WHITE DEVIL]

You say Relativistic as if the word Relative is not in fact embedded into it. This is where you sew the seeds of your own failure.

No...no. Liberal and conservative are not simply relative terms. They are relative terms in American politics. They are relativistic in a world perspective, as the standard of comparison changes every time one compares different political environments. Thus, they are not only relaive to the American base, they are relativistic in that the base itself has little or no constants. In your mind, it has a constant from which terms are relative concepts. This is based on a singular and simple-minded description of political appartuses.

But according to either one of us, this is a somewhat miniscule symantics or epistemological argument, so we move on.

You are confusing the faggy, 'non-partisan', 'unbiased', 'open-minded' idealism normally associated with Lefttards, with an overwhelming urge by brainwashed peoples to ascribe labels to people, especially opponents. In fact, it is a rather convenient set of circumstances that, I am sorry to inform you, is more composed of the former than of the latter.

The 'faggy anti-opinionist' 'objective' mindset is not only a move of 'goth liberals' or WTO protestors. There are other people who ascribe to this goal, including scientists, judges, mathematicians, philosophers, journalists, editors, etc etc. The fact that the Left makes a better attempt at hearing both sides of a story, or at least pretending to, is nothing to scoff at.

The opposite is what you have on the Fox News channel, and the subject of your constant
criticism of these boards - the hive-mind phenomenon. The fact that the American Right and most of your heroes do not even pretend to avoid this - touting it, even, is telling.

Honestly....do not sit here and deny that faggy goth kids, 1) hate to be labeled, and 2) are about 100x more likely to be Liberals. -- Part of the definition of BEING a Liberal is to reject labels and see everybody as being 100% equal in every way (after birth, that is). If you disagree with that analysis then, I implore you, provide the alternative rather than ranting about systematic disenfranchisement via pre-packaged sociopolitical appellations.

Tobacco-chawin rednecks are 100x more likely to be conservatives. That means little or nothing, though, to our discussion. As you move from the rural to the urban you travel both on the political and the cultural spectrum, as the two are inexorably linked. We could show that people in 'dumber' states are more likely to vote conservative as well. That's not something I would honestly bring to the table in an argument, however. The 'faggy goth kid' point is moot - those embedded in American counter-culture have always been liberal. Swing kids, hippie protestors, beat poets, jazz musicians, *most* rock musicians, *most* rap artists, and so on and so on. The fact that the entire American counter-culture is more likely to be Will than Carlton is news to nobody. The move now to paint conservatism as an 'underground movement' denies history and American society altogether. The definition of "conservative" is "opposed to change", while "progressive" is "in favor of change". The young, the upstarts, and the movers and shakers will always be those who reject the old, those in power, and those of the status quo.

In addition, whether or not you would like to believe this, conservatives have, especially in recent history (1975-2005), been in power. The Clinton administration was a moderate administration (some say even leaning to the right) who accomplished little or no stated goals. The Republican Congress basically used him as their bitch for 8 years. Reagan and Congressional Republicans had the house throughout the 80's, and GW 41 passed Budget plans, Tax cuts, (before recession raises) and Initiatives with little or no opposition.

And as far as my ranting about systematic disenfranchisement, you are so busy marveling at the erudite and supreme nature of your own posts that you in fact pay little attention to most of ours on the board. Of the "GOM liberal cabal" you speak of, I am probably the most conservative, yet rarely or never miss your constant and somewhat comical "faggy goth kid" portrayals. I suppose, though, when you are king of your own universe, paranoid attacks of any and all who even show a hint of disagreement are prime consideration. Laughing at your peon ascription of people's views is hardly whining about disenfranchisement. Your power to logically disenfranchise is absolutely nil.

See above, sir. It is almost a requirement of your kind to become severely annoyed and vexed to the point of personal attacks and ad hominem, when confronted with labels like "Democrat" or "Liberal". You loathe and despise these terms because you feel they take away from your objectivity, that is, you feel you cannot be considered believable unless you are stripped of every title, name, race, creed, organization or anything else you may have. (The one exception you will make, though, is School. Liberals cannot resist throwing their education into the faces of others.)

The problem with labeling many of us Democrat, though, is the fact that many of us are not Democrats. I'm a registered green...some of us are socialists, etc. Was Timothy McVeigh a Republican? His views were surely more conservative than many of ours. Would we label him a conservative? No. That's a simpleton move. His affiliation and views deserve immediacy of consideration and careful analysis beyond G.I. Joe and Cobra. Living in a black-and-white world may work for Stalinists, Fidel Castro, and George Bush, but it provides little or no use when the real world comes into play.

If you have seen O'Reilly (or Hannity, or ANY Prominent Conservative) say anything even CLOSE to what I have just stated, then I would love to see a transcript of such. As far as I know, this is my own home-cooked brew, which as-yet remains unchallenged. It is such a hard and concrete truth that people prefer to skip over it and get back to their sectarian cheerleading, or for some, non-sectarian sectarian cheerleading--those who don't realize that refusing to be a part of a group, is just as much of a group as any other group. Universal Truth #459.

O'Reilly, Hannity, ANY prominent conservative, Tadou: Liberals are out to destroy American society.

O'Reilly, Hannity, ANY prominent conservative, Tadou: The liberal solution to Iraq, Healthcare, Gun control, Abortion, Theism, South America, and Welfare is wrong.

O'Reilly, Hannity, ANY prominent conservative: Liberals are kooks and fairy-land hippies.

Tadou: Liberals are faggy goth kids who avoid labels while labeling. Though many don't wish to call themselves Liberals, in fact they support Liberal causes.

I fail to see how yours such a novel approach.

The fact that a "Check out my Rap Show" thread posted in a Sociopolitical forum is your example, more than suffices in summing up your whole argument: basically..you have none.

Now please, sir, come up with a better example, or forfeit your argument. You must know that all before you who have tried the "You don't argue the topics, you just talk shit" angle have failed, and miserably. Trouble-maker, yes. Problem-causer, yes. But Non-Contributor (and I mean, one who moves the discussion forward) is is one label that will never stick.

You misunderstood my post. In no way did I call you a non-contributor. What I did say is that you have essentially used up any patience anyone has with you. No matter how novel or neato your contributions, your often asinine posts and nonsensical forays into discussion frequently cause people to give up on you, and not even give you a chance in the first place.

Friend, look no further than the thread about Hyperspace. You have not seen a comment from me in it, and you most likely will not. I skip about 40% or more of threads on forums, just because. I am too much of a powerhouse to be contended with. It would be unfair for me to be the 600lb gorilla in every discussion.

Haha. You haven't entered the discussion because you probably know even less about physics and science than 206 and CB, who themselves admit to little more than spectulation. If you did enter the thread, you would probably come completely out of left field, arguing something to the effect of "Interdimensional travel? Liberals don't even understand this dimension. They would need to first travel to Jupiter to travel to Mars." Perhaps that isn't verbatim, but many of your responses tend to run in the same vein; partially relevant, often quite puzzling (an not due to complexity or sophistication), and sometimes simply ridiculous.

 

[Dirty Shoez]

"Needs be"

Archaic way of saying "needs to be", e.g., "The USA is the greatest country in the world. This much needs be understood."



"Summarily"

Just broke this one out yesterday, and I believe it will be very useful in the future. It's another way of saying "Right Away" or "As you Wish", without seeming like you are obeying orders.\



"Your kind"

One of my favorites. You throw that out there, and then let the person label themselves



` '

Stole this from a, i believe, Colin Powell article i saw a while back. Looks a lot cooler than ' '. I don't really do `` ", but I might start that later on.



And of course, posting more vocab obliges me to respond to the last post. I will do this later tonight, if i have time.

 

[Cmoke]

[sarcasm] you should start a new thread on puncuation [/sarcasm]

 

[Dirty Shoez]

No...no. Liberal and conservative are not simply relative terms. They are relative terms in American politics. They are relativistic in a world perspective, as the standard of comparison changes every time one compares different political environments. Thus, they are not only relaive to the American base, they are relativistic in that the base itself has little or no constants. In your mind, it has a constant from which terms are relative concepts. This is based on a singular and simple-minded description of political appartuses.

But according to either one of us, this is a somewhat miniscule symantics or epistemological argument, so we move on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonym and "Relational antonyms" -- Should speak for themselves.

Believe it or don't believe it. Conservative and Liberal will always be synonymous with Traditional and Non-Traditional. Not open to argument.

The differences you are looking for and trying to delineate, are between Republicans and Democrats, Labor and Democratic-Socialists, and so on. Liberal and Conservative are labels that are generally applicable in all but the rarest and isolatedist (eh!) of circumstances.

The 'faggy anti-opinionist' 'objective' mindset is not only a move of 'goth liberals' or WTO protestors. There are other people who ascribe to this goal, including scientists, judges, mathematicians, philosophers, journalists, editors, etc etc. The fact that the Left makes a better attempt at hearing both sides of a story, or at least pretending to, is nothing to scoff at.

It is very much something to scoff at, because they do it from the standpoint of being superiors rather than being equals. They don't listen for the sake of actually listening and potentially changing their minds--they listen for the sake of being able to brag about having listened.

They are seen right through, and yet, they still hold up their pontificating as some kind of righteous and beneficial activity. Rarely is this the case.

The Left has no clue what they want, so they are compelled to listen to both sides. The Right generally knows what the people need, so they are compelled, not to listen, period, but to listen for nuances and compromises.

Unfortunately, the language of nuance and compromises is not one that today's Liberals are fluent in. Thus...they continually fail. They fail in Congress, and they fail with the American people. John Kerry was (and is) infamous in this regard.

The opposite is what you have on the Fox News channel, and the subject of your constant
criticism of these boards - the hive-mind phenomenon. The fact that the American Right and most of your heroes do not even pretend to avoid this - touting it, even, is telling.

`Telling' of nothing more than the fact that ANY moving-away-ization (lmao) of the predictable MSM mentality immediately `outs' you as a GOP-friendly station, perhaps. `Telling' of anything more than that, of the inability of a station to be unlike others without being immediately subject to labels, no matter how inapplicable.....No.

Tobacco-chawin rednecks are 100x more likely to be conservatives. That means little or nothing, though, to our discussion. As you move from the rural to the urban you travel both on the political and the cultural spectrum, as the two are inexorably linked. We could show that people in 'dumber' states are more likely to vote conservative as well. That's not something I would honestly bring to the table in an argument, however.

And that Rich people are more likely to vote Democrat, but please...keep going.

The 'faggy goth kid' point is moot - those embedded in American counter-culture have always been liberal. Swing kids, hippie protestors, beat poets, jazz musicians, *most* rock musicians, *most* rap artists, and so on and so on. The fact that the entire American counter-culture is more likely to be Will than Carlton is news to nobody. The move now to paint conservatism as an 'underground movement' denies history and American society altogether. The definition of "conservative" is "opposed to change", while "progressive" is "in favor of change". The young, the upstarts, and the movers and shakers will always be those who reject the old, those in power, and those of the status quo.

Change in certain ways, sport. Change in certain ways.

Liberal ideas of change are to eliminate laws. Make drugs legal. Make such and such legal. Lower the drinking age. And so on. Ideas meant to kill and eliminate more people from the earth so the global elite can remain in power, the antithesis of Liberal thought though it may be. But hey, you guys are sheep and don't even realize it, so i don't blame you.

Conservative ideas of change are to create laws to maintain and create strength in the family so that, if all else fails (massive corporations siezing world power, for example), at least you'll have your family. This is actually funny, because when you ask Atheists what, if not God, do they care about most, they generally mention their family...yet, most are in favor of abortion, against free trade, etc., things that kill poor people and decrease the population, i.e., the availability of family to be had.

You speak of Counter-Culture. One thing that you did not mention was the constant Conservatism-tinged movements among minorities, and the opposite, Socialism-tinged ones by Whites and the Middle Class. Listen to Wu-Tang's intro on "Forever" to know about the Conservatism one--there's Theistic and Anti-Darwin references throughout.

Blacks are now in the process of trying to rebuild their communities, from the ground up. Ignorant Liberals think they can help accomplish this by socialism and job hand-outs (and of course, killing poor people's babies). The smarter Conservatives know that killing and hand-outs are beside the point--what is needed is strong families and tertiary education. It is no wonder MLK and Malcolm X were both strong Social Conservatives, yet are painted as Liberal by those who would choose to re-write history and claim them as their own.

In addition, whether or not you would like to believe this, conservatives have, especially in recent history (1975-2005), been in power. The Clinton administration was a moderate administration (some say even leaning to the right) who accomplished little or no stated goals. The Republican Congress basically used him as their bitch for 8 years. Reagan and Congressional Republicans had the house throughout the 80's, and GW 41 passed Budget plans, Tax cuts, (before recession raises) and Initiatives with little or no opposition.

And this is of the Liberals' own doing. They refuse to move towards the Center and become the Center-Left party, and this is what results.

And as far as my ranting about systematic disenfranchisement, you are so busy marveling at the erudite and supreme nature of your own posts that you in fact pay little attention to most of ours on the board.

Au contraire. You just happen not to say anything of any consequence, other than things said to advance a debate. I've seen rants against corporations and posts about such-and-such demonstration, but never a petition to a state legislature to fund an education initiative, or things like these. But continue...

Of the "GOM liberal cabal" you speak of, I am probably the most conservative, yet rarely or never miss your constant and somewhat comical "faggy goth kid" portrayals. I suppose, though, when you are king of your own universe, paranoid attacks of any and all who even show a hint of disagreement are prime consideration. Laughing at your peon ascription of people's views is hardly whining about disenfranchisement. Your power to logically disenfranchise is absolutely nil.

I am very good at what I do. There is not much that can be added to that. I keep the weak on the sidelines, and make sure that the strong know very-well the parameters within which I will allow them to operate.

You were more FGK in the past than now. I cannot think of a reason to call you FGK, and don't believe I have recently. This does not mean that you do not resemble the profile, but that you are backing away from it, so I am showing you due deference.

The problem with labeling many of us Democrat, though, is the fact that many of us are not Democrats. I'm a registered green...some of us are socialists, etc. Was Timothy McVeigh a Republican? His views were surely more conservative than many of ours. Would we label him a conservative? No. That's a simpleton move. His affiliation and views deserve immediacy of consideration and careful analysis beyond G.I. Joe and Cobra. Living in a black-and-white world may work for Stalinists, Fidel Castro, and George Bush, but it provides little or no use when the real world comes into play.

Friend, observe the Bell curve.

Stupid people on the left; You People are in the middle; people like me are, of course, on the Right.

You struggle and strive to be like everyone else but a tad bit higher; and people like me understand that being like everyone else is bad, and that a tad bit is never enough.

If it walks, talks and looks like a duck...pues, tiene que ser un pato. This does not mean it is like all the other ducks, but it is still a duck, regardless.

 

[Dirty Shoez]

O'Reilly, Hannity, ANY prominent conservative, Tadou: Liberals are out to destroy American society.

O'Reilly, Hannity, ANY prominent conservative, Tadou: The liberal solution to Iraq, Healthcare, Gun control, Abortion, Theism, South America, and Welfare is wrong.

O'Reilly, Hannity, ANY prominent conservative: Liberals are kooks and fairy-land hippies.

Tadou: Liberals are faggy goth kids who avoid labels while labeling. Though many don't wish to call themselves Liberals, in fact they support Liberal causes.

I fail to see how yours such a novel approach.

I could go up and down the line, but why bother? The assessments are generally correct. Liberals mostly don't know what the fuck they're doing, because they live in some kind of Alternate universe where they either think most Americans are Liberals, think most Americans prefer a Liberal government, or both, when in fact, neither is the case.

The USA is the most Center-Right country in the Western World. Bottom line. We love us some Center-Right politics. And if the Left doesn't want to convert itself into the Center, and play along...then they will get left behind. Even when they do want to play along--its hard to convince the people you're Center when you've been moving more and more Left, and have become increasingly more shrill every non-election year.

You misunderstood my post. In no way did I call you a non-contributor. What I did say is that you have essentially used up any patience anyone has with you. No matter how novel or neato your contributions, your often asinine posts and nonsensical forays into discussion frequently cause people to give up on you, and not even give you a chance in the first place.

And this does not bother me, because time and again, I have shown that the most vocal of my opponents are nothing like me. The great majority of them come from Middle Class LIberal families, ergo, have no real reason to view the world from a Conservative standpoint.

Again, the fact that your would-be straw that broke the camel's back, is a post that doesn't even belong in this forum, is--to recycle a word you used earlier--very telling. You may not be exactly like them and used to employing their same methods, but you are definitely of those who like to stamp out and quiet dissenting opinions by any means possible, in this case, by painting me as somebody who isn't listened to because of my various "offenses".

I am a 600lb Gorilla in this GOM. This much is not open to discussion. When I speak, the people listen. It is not my fault that most of them don't like what they're hearing, and will do anything to quash and eliminate dissent.

For people who are more than willing to listen to `both sides' of the story, as you put it, you people sure are quick to use ulterior motives (past incidents, general uneasiness, etc.) to discredit someone's voice, rather than seeing it for what it is.

Just try and tell me I `misunderstood' your post again. I already know exactly what you are saying, and indeed, could explain it better than you could if i felt up to the task. But, I do not. You have no point here other than that people are sheep and that, for them to act the way they are, I must either be doing something horribly wrong or frighteningly right. I think we both know which one it is, and not just some of the time...most of the time. Who/What/Where/When/Why kind of stuff that should need no elaboration.

Haha. You haven't entered the discussion because you probably know even less about physics and science than 206 and CB, who themselves admit to little more than spectulation. If you did enter the thread, you would probably come completely out of left field, arguing something to the effect of "Interdimensional travel? Liberals don't even understand this dimension. They would need to first travel to Jupiter to travel to Mars." Perhaps that isn't verbatim, but many of your responses tend to run in the same vein; partially relevant, often quite puzzling (an not due to complexity or sophistication), and sometimes simply ridiculous.

Verily. Only...not really. I don't enter a good 50-60% of threads, simply because the great majority of threads I post in go well over 20-40+ replies. I like to keep some empty threads, first of all, just to let the people know who is really in control, and secondly...because I just don't feel like it.

Mira...

http://www.siccness.net/vb/showthread.php?t=169832
http://www.siccness.net/vb/showthread.php?t=169772
http://www.siccness.net/vb/showthread.php?t=161666

All threads I could have easily jumped into, but didn't bother. Why? Because this is what I do.

The Al Gore thread, in fact, would have been PERFECT to play the "Yeah, sure you're not a Democrat and you don't support Al Gore, but the only problem is, you still bash Republicans 90% of the time" card.


In the end of it all, I am misunderstood by only the inferior among us. The superior understand me well, but play along with the inferiors, which is necessitated by their feeling a need to be in a position of power and privilege, in this case, the Neo-Hippie Non-Republicrat Liberal Siccness Cabal.

You see label-placing towards people as bad, but will readily ascribe labels to political opinions. You do this, and then turn around and reject the common-sense "Well, if you generally think like a ____, then you're a ___ whether you realize it or not" capitalization that it entails. It is sheer lunacy.

Being Center-Left, Center-Right or Center, does not entitle you to your Open-Minded Merit badge. Being consistently rational and accepting the good results as well as the bad of your philosophy is the only thing that entitles you to one.

 

[Dirty Shoez]

I am sorry for this. -- Just plain hilarious. Said, obviously, after something I am in no way sorry for.


This much is not open to discussion. -- Also hilarious. Something like a "I dare you to argue this", but the use of the passive voice is just...awesome.


"(less common verb/adj./etc.) and (more common)" -- Harder to define, but a perfect example is when i said "quash and eliminate". `I will smite and destroy you if you ever get in my way' would be another. More for other people than for me or other magniloquent people, and something that does more good when spoken, but still...good practice. Not everybody finds pleasure in the usage of archaic or uncommon words.


"Of those (who)..." -- Used rather than "Among those". Just sounds better, IMO.


There exists -- Again...sounds much better than There Is/Are, e.g., "There exists three species with this kind of tail", rather than "There are three species".


There is not much _I can add to it_/that can be said/etc. -- My attempt at irony, because what usually follows is a paragraph (or more) of elaboration.


No. -- Just great. It's incredible. It says it all. Not just "No", but "No." You will get no further response; just No. It's as powerful as it is succinct.



More in-depth:

The people -- Used instead of people. Very funny because just including the definite article is enough to piss some people off, and have them screaming out "WHAT People!? U don't have any people!!!!!!" and other igorance.


And that, my friend, is REAL. -- Something like how people came to expect punchline A, B and C whenever The Rock or Stone Cold Steve Austin would take the mic. It is one of my staples.

 

[Cmoke]

correct me if im wrong but arnt those phrases? not vocab words....just a thought

 

[Dirty Shoez]

I don't mean to be a smart ass, because I see you are trying to defer here, but unlike most times, a dictionary definition is particularly relevant:


vo·cab·u·lar·y Audio pronunciation of "vocabulary" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (v-kby-lr)
n. pl. vo·cab·u·lar·ies

1. All the words of a language.
2. The sum of words used by, understood by, or at the command of a particular person or group.
3. A list of words and often phrases, usually arranged alphabetically and defined or translated; a lexicon or glossary.
4. A supply of expressive means; a repertoire of communication: a dancer's vocabulary of movement.


"A repertoire of communication" puts it perfectly. These are the words, phrases, and everything else that I use on a regular basis. Combine this with watching too much Pro Wrestling, and I've learned exactly when and where to place them. It's an art that I've been blessed with.